Google vs. U.S. Department of Justice (1381 hits)
Category: NewsLabels: ETS_Sociopolitical_Commentary ETS_Comedy_Photoshops
Rating: 0.88 on 71 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-03-15 01:23:49 EST
This is a classic case of good goliath vs. bad goliath. Google held out as long as possible and I commend them, but the power hungry commie nazi bastards at the Justice Department look like they will get their wish and have a peek at what we're all searching for on google: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/03/14/google.hearing.ap/index.html
You know, the way I figure it, they're already listening to our phone calls, they might as well be dipping into our internet habits too.
I propse we make this little encroachment on our rights as amusing as possible.
Here's how we do it:
User Reviews
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-03-18 13:00:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Look!!! Your post made a difference!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060318/bs_nm/google_ruling_dc
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-03-16 13:09:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You lick semen, don't you?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-16 03:04:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-03-16 00:14:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think a commercial site is essentially for-profit. Bart would have NO trouble proving that isn't the case.
----------------------
That's not what the statute says, unfortunately. It says: "it is not necessary that the person make a profit or that the making or offering to make such communications be the person's sole or principal business or source of income."
Here, just read my new post for a full explanation: http://www.ubersite.com/m/85396
I know it's our nature to brush this off because it just sounds like another wild crazy ETS conspiracy post or something that would only happen in Nazi Germany not the good ol' U.S.of A., but this is IT. This is the real thing. It's in BLACK AND WHITE written by the US Congress and enforced by the US Department of Justice!
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-03-16 00:14:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think a commercial site is essentially for-profit. Bart would have NO trouble proving that isn't the case.
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2006-03-15 22:18:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm not touching this one with my 10-ft pole.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 21:40:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-15 20:47:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 19:44:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.html
That link is to a copy of the act the DOJ is trying to defend and is the reason for all the subpoenas.
I'm reading it now.
------------------
Maybe I am being dense, but how is this linked to the subpoenas?
Give someone a computer and access to the internet and they can show access to porn without proof of age in a second.
---------------------
NO SHIT! I don't understand it either! Apparently the DOJ requested an 'independent' judge (Judge Ware), who is presiding over the injunction between the ACLU and the DOJ, back up their subpoena of these records (essentially saying it's constitutional to request them).
This is bad news if you ask me. I don't know what they're specifically trying to show, because it's part of a case that's ongoing. Apparently, according to the DOJ, they are trying to show that the current filters are even inadequate in filtering out all porn from the eyes of children. What this amounts to, dude, if you ask me, is an effort on the part of the Republican controlled congress to slowly get rid of porn from the web by preventing people from reproducing it without having a shitload of measures in place and requiring a password, etc.
As for part (d), Bart is in violation of that subsection right now. There are no specific links to anything of the sort on this site. Until he links to such a site or such a commercially available filter, then uber could be fined $50,000 PER INCIDENT and PER DAY that it was not brought up to 'standard'.
Furthermore...
"The commercial purpose part would protect ubersite."
Razor said this too, but I disagree with you both. Dude, I hate to say it, but I think you're wrong. As long as Bart takes money from ads, and as long as he takes money from uberboard, etc. any lawyer would have no trouble classifying ubersite as 'commercial'...
This Act is, in short, pretty damning.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-15 20:52:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
``(d) Obligations of Interactive Computer Service.--A
provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time
of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of
interactive computer service and in a manner deemed
appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that
parental control protections (such as computer hardware,
software, or filtering services) are commercially available
that may assist the customer in limiting access to material
that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or
provide the customer with access to information identifying,
current providers of such protections.''.
If they mention a filter, or cyber nanny or somehting like that I think they are excluded from any damage.
----------------------------------------
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 19:49:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
HOLY JESUS! Everyone from uber needs to LOOK AT THIS!!!!
``(1) Prohibited conduct.--Whoever knowingly and with
knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or
foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any
communication for commercial purposes that is available to
any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to
minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not
more than 6 months, or both.
That means that if Bart Cilfone has ads on this site and makes money, NONE OF US can ever post anything that might be "harmful to minors" or Bart can be jailed for 6 months and incur a $50,000 fine! OR BOTH!
Am I reading that right!?!?!?
------------
The commercial purpose part would protect ubersite.
It has parts that look pretty f'ed but at the end of the day, there are loopholes that will allow me all the smut i have grown to love from the internet.
I hope.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-15 20:47:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 19:44:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.html
That link is to a copy of the act the DOJ is trying to defend and is the reason for all the subpoenas.
I'm reading it now.
------------------
Maybe I am being dense, but how is this linked to the subpoenas?
Give someone a computer and access to the internet and they can show access to porn without proof of age in a second.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 20:03:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
47 U.S.C. § 231(e)(2)(B).
Congress defined material that is harmful to minors as:
any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that-
(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
LOOK AT THAT LAST DEFINITION!!! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, HALF THE USERS ON UBER WOULD BE IN SERIOUS VIOLATION!!!!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 20:01:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Seriously guys, READ THIS ACT! http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.html
The only thing standing in its way right now is the ACLU. There is a moratorium that is being battled out in court. This is the apparent reason for the Google, MSN, and Yahoo subpoenas.
We're talking about the end of the internet as we know it here.
It's amazing what you discover when you actually READ this shit they try to pass. The language of this act, in my view, spells DOOM for websites like this with a lax attitude toward self-moderation.
I hate to be a constant doomsayer, but DAMN! This is HUGE!
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-03-15 19:54:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Hilarious.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 19:49:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
HOLY JESUS! Everyone from uber needs to LOOK AT THIS!!!!
``(1) Prohibited conduct.--Whoever knowingly and with
knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or
foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any
communication for commercial purposes that is available to
any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to
minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not
more than 6 months, or both.
That means that if Bart Cilfone has ads on this site and makes money, NONE OF US can ever post anything that might be "harmful to minors" or Bart can be jailed for 6 months and incur a $50,000 fine! OR BOTH!
Am I reading that right!?!?!?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 19:46:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
A quick read of the introduction is telling....
SEC. 1402. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) while custody, care, and nurture of the child resides
first with the parent, the widespread availability of the
Internet presents opportunities for minors to access
materials through the World Wide Web in a manner that can
frustrate parental supervision or control;
(2) the protection of the physical and psychological well-
being of minors by shielding them from materials that are
harmful to them is a compelling governmental interest;
(3) to date, while the industry has developed innovative
ways to help parents and educators restrict material that is
harmful to minors through parental control protections and
self-regulation, such efforts have not provided a national
solution to the problem of minors accessing harmful material
on the World Wide Web;
(4) a prohibition on the distribution of material harmful
to minors, combined with legitimate defenses, is currently
the most effective and least restrictive means by which to
satisfy the compelling government interest; and
(5) notwithstanding the existence of protections that limit
the distribution over the World Wide Web of material that is
harmful to minors, parents, educators, and industry must
continue efforts to find ways to protect children from being
exposed to harmful material found on the Internet.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 19:44:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.html
That link is to a copy of the act the DOJ is trying to defend and is the reason for all the subpoenas.
I'm reading it now.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-15 19:31:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 18:46:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo:
This Google thing has been rather public, on every major news station at intervals for the past couple weeks.
The China argument has been part of the mainstream media coverage, and you're right, it is a black mark on Google - one I hope they remedy ASAP - but I also think it is important that the public doesn't dismiss the U.S. case based on Google's blackmark in that one.
I don't think it's the government's job to take a proactive role in tracking down or even defining too much what's 'dangerous' and what isn't on the internet.
The way I see it, the internet is like the ghetto.
We all KNOW it's an adult-oriented cesspool of child molesters, dissidents, pornographers, outcasts, conspiracy theorists, and seedy online casinos...we don't NEED the government to tell us that. And we don't NEED measures to be taken ON TOP of the PLETHORA of filtering software that's on the market to aid parents protecting their child's eyes, not to mention the simple act of actively supervising them.
Just as you wouldn't let your child wander alone into the ghetto at night, they should not be left unsupervised on the internet. It's that fucking simple. People just looking for another way to be able to shove their child a new toy and leave them with it so they don't have to pay attention to them will ruin the internet like they ruined cable television. Hell, look at all the hullaballoo over Janet's wee nipple! IMAGINE if that mentality seeped onto the internet! This site would be shut down in a matter of minutes!
It's only a step further to v-chips and government proxies and internet 'tollroads'.
"Please validate your age" becomes "this page no longer available".
-------------------------------------------------------
I mean they would make it more public, as in they would make it more public how exactly an individuals privacy was being invaded. i have heqard of it for quite a while and yet to see or read an explination of how it could invade mine, or anybodies privacy.
I agree with you all the way that we all should know how fucked up the interent is and that it should be more of the parents responsibility to protect (if that is the right word) children from viewing sick shit. But I have heard arguments that this is to be used to find how people look for child porn, and in turn aid in stopping child porn rings. If it is going to be used to aid in catching people who peddle or trade in smut like that I am for it.
I would love a more defined explination of exactly what they are asking for and how google thinks it will invade privacy (i think they would be more public with their defense if this were the case). I am not clear on how people think this info will give ammo to people who are trying to make sites illegal because children might get access.
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2006-03-15 19:03:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Seems you can't win, ETS. People tell you to stop bitching/crying so you write something amusing and well-presented while sticking to your guns on the political/current events issue and instead of hate you get 'meh'. I laughed. PF2.
Submitted by Deconstruction (user info) at 2006-03-15 19:01:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
interest sting
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 18:46:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Indo:
This Google thing has been rather public, on every major news station at intervals for the past couple weeks.
The China argument has been part of the mainstream media coverage, and you're right, it is a black mark on Google - one I hope they remedy ASAP - but I also think it is important that the public doesn't dismiss the U.S. case based on Google's blackmark in that one.
I don't think it's the government's job to take a proactive role in tracking down or even defining too much what's 'dangerous' and what isn't on the internet.
The way I see it, the internet is like the ghetto.
We all KNOW it's an adult-oriented cesspool of child molesters, dissidents, pornographers, outcasts, conspiracy theorists, and seedy online casinos...we don't NEED the government to tell us that. And we don't NEED measures to be taken ON TOP of the PLETHORA of filtering software that's on the market to aid parents protecting their child's eyes, not to mention the simple act of actively supervising them.
Just as you wouldn't let your child wander alone into the ghetto at night, they should not be left unsupervised on the internet. It's that fucking simple. People just looking for another way to be able to shove their child a new toy and leave them with it so they don't have to pay attention to them will ruin the internet like they ruined cable television. Hell, look at all the hullaballoo over Janet's wee nipple! IMAGINE if that mentality seeped onto the internet! This site would be shut down in a matter of minutes!
It's only a step further to v-chips and government proxies and internet 'tollroads'.
"Please validate your age" becomes "this page no longer available".
Now onto NSA spying...
You also said "the spying involved parties in other countries which is 100% legal, and has many precedents."
You should really take a few minutes, as I have to read the FISA law of 1978. I URGE you to, dude. It states CLEARLY and UNIQUIVOCALLY that spying is allowed UNLESS...**UNLESS** one of the parties is a United States citizen. In fact, it repeats that several times.
See for yourself: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html
I've actually read the whole section on Electronic Surveillance. Once you read it too, you'll understand why I'm so sour on Bush. He broke the law outright. And he's apparently getting away with it. It's unfuckingbelievable.
He had a RESPONSIBILITY to uphold the laws and the constitution of this country, and he shat on that responsibility. All he had to do was go to Congress and ask for a revised law...but he didn't. He tried to keep the WHOLE OPERATION secret from the public. Why?
WHY?
(Thanks for being civil this time around. I appreciate the +2, but I appreciate the civility far more. Thanks.)
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-15 17:36:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I am suprised nobody brought up how they bend over for china but fight the US.
They have the freedom to fight the US here and still operate, not so in China. But I think it is kind of important in this conversation. I think google is making a stink about this because they know they have a black eye in china.
To be honest I don't know enough about what the govt is asking for to know if it is even remotely possible for it to be traced back to individual users, or somehow give away google trade secrets. I think if either one were the case Yahoo would have made a stink about it.
Either way I am glad google is fighting about it, but I really don't think it is a threat.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:35:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
* reversing abortion in S.D.
* NSA spying
* eminent domain
* precedent for supoenaing search engines' data
---------------------------
*will be overturned (I think, and right now it looks like that IS the will of the people in SD)
*the spying involved parties in other countries which is 100% legal, and has many precedents, that is why no case is being brought against the gov
*a shit sandwhich, I agree
*for me the jury is still out on this one, if no info is given that can be traced directly to individual people is it dangerous?
Would you have a problem with some type of satelite program that would monitor all the cars in the US to see where the most speeding took place, but didn't trace all the movement of the cars back to the owner? If the info they supoena can't be tracked back to anyone, but helps them catch people who trade in child pornography I can't see it as bad. There is a line that can be crossed, but the question of where that line is needs to be addressed. I would have to know more about exactly what they are asking and how that info could be used before I could call what they are asking for an invasion of privacy. I think if google really had a case for it being an invasion of privacy they would have made a much more public campaign promoting their defense of the publics trust.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 17:01:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The Chinese make a cheaper AK-47.
Submitted by ih8u2man (user info) at 2006-03-15 16:52:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
As a side note it is a Russian AK-47 not a Chinese AK-47. A gun made in China would probably be plastic and backfire resulting in the loss of an eye or two.
Funny post anyways.
Submitted by ih8u2man (user info) at 2006-03-15 16:50:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
nICE.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-03-15 16:44:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 15:53:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
I know all of that Hadley.
The issue is not with what they're going to do with the information mined from THIS case in particular. The issue is that this sets a precedent for future subpoenas in cases where our rights MIGHT be violated."
-----
How are they being violated? They went through the courts to get the records. That Google even made them take that step says more about how the system SHOULD work rather than how it does. You should be more concerned that Yahoo, MSN, and AOL DIDN'T fight it at all.
Finally, read what the ruling was. Google must supply some data to comply with the request - namely search terms and the results returned. Up until recently, most search engines had "hidden" pages where you could watch terms scroll by in realtime. Google can self-censor the data so there is no chance tracking it back to an individual or even a region.
"Many experts agree with that this is a major concern.
The degradation of our rights is a slow process. It happens over a long stretch of time. If someone came to you now and said "we're gonna take away your right to own property" for instance, you'd pitch a fit. But if they slowly built you up to that over time, it might not seem like that big of a deal.
This is how it happens...piecemeal."
-----
No it isn't. Owning property is not a right. In fact, even once you do manage to own property, there are limits to what you can do with it. Absolute privacy is not a right. Indeed, applying your idea of privacy rights to the internet means no server logs, period. It means no routing. It means no domain names. It means no email. It means no IM.
Are you gonna remember to type in http://69.9.174.154 everytime you want to visit uber (which through the magic of non-privacy would drop you at B@W)?
Are you gonna start sending paper letters and accepting that it will be a week before you hear back?
Are you gonna start double-layering your tinfoil hat to protect you from a possible violation of your thought rights by the evil government's mind control rays?
Wake up. Owning slaves used to be a "right" by your definition. If you don't want the government knowing what you search, build your own search engine. Don't list it publicly, don't let others access it. Just spider the web your damn self and no one can tell you what you can and can't search and no one can tell you how long you need to keep the records of what is searched. No records = no need to comply, right?
Just because you have limited privacy rights (and they are VERY limited) doesn't mean that everything you do has an expectation of privacy.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 16:08:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm counting on it.
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-03-15 16:06:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The CIA will be busting down your door in about......wait for it.......now.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 15:53:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I know all of that Hadley.
The issue is not with what they're going to do with the information mined from THIS case in particular. The issue is that this sets a precedent for future subpoenas in cases where our rights MIGHT be violated.
Many experts agree with that this is a major concern.
The degradation of our rights is a slow process. It happens over a long stretch of time. If someone came to you now and said "we're gonna take away your right to own property" for instance, you'd pitch a fit. But if they slowly built you up to that over time, it might not seem like that big of a deal.
This is how it happens...piecemeal.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-03-15 15:42:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-03-15 14:14:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
Leave it to ETS to get pissed that US Government subpoenaed records to back up their point. But even more appropriately, leave it to ETS to get pissed that they initially TRIED to subpoena records from 2002 but were told that they didn't keep those records because of the storage load that would have placed on the company. As a result, they had to try for more recent records.
Keep crying wolf, Patsy. We'll start listening someday.
------
but then it will be too late, just like in 'Red Dawn', then OH NOES COMMIES EVERYWHERE
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-03-15 14:51:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's quite simple, ETS. No one's rights are being violated. In order to try and limit the amount you bleeding heart fucks would complain, they asked for OLD records. Google said they didn't have them, so they asked for newer ones.
Now, I say no one's rights are being violated because (are you ready for this?) you have NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY WHEN USING SOMEONE ELSE'S COMPUTER/NETWORK. When you send an email to someone, it resides on AT LEAST 4 computers, and the owners of those computers have the rights to read them. When you use Google to perform a search, your search and the results returned are Google's property.
I can subpoena Google's records if I feel that someone has libeled me and I want to know how many people have seen that as a result of their index. That violates no one's rights. The government is trying to see how easy it is to bypass "reasonable" controls for children to find porn. What is reasonable? Mostly it is filtering software and Google Images is the easiest way to do it.
So, really, where have your rights been violated or even eroded? Because the government is trying to make it harder for porn to be available to a horny 12 year old?
Thanks for turning me into Stabkill for a minute. I feel dirty now.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 14:35:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't see how your 2002 argument amounts to a hill of beans.
What bearing does that have on whether our rights could potentially be infringed upon or limited with regard to what we access on the internet?
I'm sure this is just an oversight on my part. If you'd kindly explain how you got from A to B, hadley, I'd appreciate it.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2006-03-15 14:14:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Leave it to ETS to get pissed that US Government subpoenaed records to back up their point. But even more appropriately, leave it to ETS to get pissed that they initially TRIED to subpoena records from 2002 but were told that they didn't keep those records because of the storage load that would have placed on the company. As a result, they had to try for more recent records.
Keep crying wolf, Patsy. We'll start listening someday.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-15 13:30:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
indeed. as long as you don't post some bullshit about 9/11 being a conspiracy, we're still tight like virgin pussy. hopefully you have not already done this, because well quite frankly i'll probably get banned with the -2 bomb that would implode on your post with facts and research data and such and such.
but conspiracy theories are fun, i'll give you that. oh, and i don't think you read my most latest post... dare i say B@W? no, i shouldn't because it won't happen... but you'd probably like it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 13:26:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
wardy: no beef here. Disagreeing is not a crime. The day it becomes one, we'll all be in trouble.
----------
Submitted by digdug (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:52:16 (#)
Ranking: -2
No one, least of all the "commie nazies" (oxymoron much?) at the Justice Department, cares if you've been looking at toaster fetish pornography. Suck a horse cock.
----------
You know, I had a feeling someone would take it upon themselves to point that out. It justifies my putting it there. ;)
-----------
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:46:31 (#)
Ranking: 2
You better get up early and prepare for a long day if you're planning to assimilate Arabs.
They just don't throw their arms in the air like we'd do, they're a little more stubborn.
-----------
Well, you know what they say, "The early bomb gets the Arab." And my personal favorite: "Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and KILL ARABS!" :P
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-15 13:06:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
don't be angry i disagreed with you on doom code's post, i still love the way the light hits your eyes and all that other homo stuff.
hope all is well with the kids and the bakery and that stuff,
wardo
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-15 12:33:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-03-15 12:10:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:34:21 (#)
Ranking: 2
Quebec is not France. Though we do share their none-stop striking spirit and laziness.
-----
BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Can you believe students are striking on school? If I had known I could do that in 9th grade...
===
I missed school because of quite a few strikes when I was in school and college. Even in 6th fucking grade. It must be something in our genes. Or following the example adults give us...like two years ago when they barricaded regional roads, close down ports and beat truck drivers, set cars on fire on highways...woohoo!
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-03-15 12:10:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:34:21 (#)
Ranking: 2
Quebec is not France. Though we do share their none-stop striking spirit and laziness.
-----
BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Can you believe students are striking on school? If I had known I could do that in 9th grade...
Submitted by digdug (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:52:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No one, least of all the "commie nazies" (oxymoron much?) at the Justice Department, cares if you've been looking at toaster fetish pornography. Suck a horse cock.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:46:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You better get up early and prepare for a long day if you're planning to assimilate Arabs.
They just don't throw their arms in the air like we'd do, they're a little more stubborn.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:43:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, right now we're pretty wrapped up in assimilating the Middle East. There just aren't enough hours in the day yet to devote ourselves fully to Quebec...
...but we're workin' on it. ;)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:34:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Quebec is not France. Though we do share their none-stop striking spirit and laziness.
It's not about having a problem with us. More anglos just hastens our assimilation and lowers our leverage.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:28:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I personally don't have a bit of a problem with the French really. I respect any country that shortens their workday and values good food and good wine.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:12:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:09:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
Not today, Caul. I'm done.
I'd rather just try to get along, if possible. Whaddaya say?
I'm gonna be your neighbor soon anyway; we might as well get started being tolerant. :D
===
I'll try.
I really hope there is not anoter American exode toward Canada. Not because I hate americans but because it would further threaten French.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:09:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not today, Caul. I'm done.
I'd rather just try to get along, if possible. Whaddaya say?
I'm gonna be your neighbor soon anyway; we might as well get started being tolerant. :D
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:01:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
WHERE'S MY RETALIATION!!?!?!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-15 11:00:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:46:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:32:49 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Professional_Peon (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:10:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm on the verge of wanting to be Canadian.
Somebody email Caul for me and see if I can crash in his front yard.
===
Is that right? That's odd because Americans keep saying "we enjoy the most freedom...blah blah blah...we are the best bestest country in the galaxay!"
Why are you complaining?
-------------------
Caul, you know better than that.
When's the last time I, for instance, said "we enjoy the best freedom...blah blah blah..."?
===
Maybe not you but the majority of americans do.
Enjoy your "freedom" guys, and please don't move here :-D
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:56:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-03-15 08:33:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
youre starting to become a cliche of yourself, you do know that?
-----------------------
Well, you know, there's nothing quite like 100 posts by other people reinforcing that cliche to solidify it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:46:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:32:49 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Professional_Peon (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:10:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm on the verge of wanting to be Canadian.
Somebody email Caul for me and see if I can crash in his front yard.
===
Is that right? That's odd because Americans keep saying "we enjoy the most freedom...blah blah blah...we are the best bestest country in the galaxay!"
Why are you complaining?
-------------------
Caul, you know better than that.
When's the last time I, for instance, said "we enjoy the best freedom...blah blah blah..."?
That's right, I didn't. In fact, I take every opportunity to point out how our rights are being ERODED around us and how nobody seems to give a fucking shit, and YET I get only shit for it from the likes of you.
Our forefathers would be fucking ashamed of us... A bunch of LAZY, GRANDIOSE, ARROGANT, DUMBASS PUSSIES who are unwilling to risk their little HOLLOWED SHELL of a 'modern' way of life to do what they SHOULD be doing, which is standing up and saying "hang on a fucking minute!"
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:35:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
* reversing abortion in S.D.
* NSA spying
* eminent domain
* precedent for supoenaing search engines' data
I could probably go on, but if this isn't enough for people to get the idea, I don't have a clue what would be, and, frankly, they probably wouldn't understand what they were looking at anyway.
What if...you couldn't...say....buy a house anymore and live in it all your life without fear someone like Wal-Mart could just legally TAKE it from you?
Oh...covered that.
Ok ok ok....what if....just think WAAAAAAAAY ahead into the future here......there came a time in America where you couldn't pick up a phone anymore and call someone without knowing there's an outside chance that if you've ever said ANYTHING about the president or terrorism one way or the other, you could be listened to?
Oh... (Rebut away that the NSA spying is supposedly only taking place on calls outside the US. I'll re-rebut by saying if the Bush administration is willing to break the law while doing that, what the fuck is to stop them from getting ALL THEY WANT? That, to me, is a fuckng legitimate concern.)
Ok, what if you knew that because of some paranoid fear of exposing children to titties and cocks and pussies, people would be trying to limit (a little at a time) the 'legal content' of the internet?
Oh, that's right. IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!!!!
Everyone should open their eyes to this. (I recomment using your third eye as well, otherwise you're just gonna come up with a lot of bullshit reasons why all of this is ok.)
PS: I have the perfect solution for parents wanting to protect their children from the dangers of the internet....
How 'bout this:
TOOLS > INTERNET OPTIONS > CONTENT > ENABLE??????
OR THIS:
START > SHUT DOWN?????
Or, I know....how about we set up a government proxy server through which all internet traffic can run to ensure compliance with some law they've set up to protect children from seeing a few internet chesticles? THAT is the best idea!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:32:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Professional_Peon (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:10:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm on the verge of wanting to be Canadian.
Somebody email Caul for me and see if I can crash in his front yard.
===
Is that right? That's odd because Americans keep saying "we enjoy the most freedom...blah blah blah...we are the best bestest country in the galaxay!"
Why are you complaining?
Submitted by Professional_Peon (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:10:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm on the verge of wanting to be Canadian.
Somebody email Caul for me and see if I can crash in his front yard.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:08:40 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
CRY!
Submitted by Avals (user info) at 2006-03-15 10:04:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
+1 for "Who's Fucking Who?".
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-03-15 09:55:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Have another for being intelligent and free thinking enough to challenge the 'tards around here who buy into the shit sandwich our government is serving up.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-03-15 09:53:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-03-15 09:50:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Go suck another dick.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-03-15 08:44:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I LIKE it!
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-03-15 08:33:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
youre starting to become a cliche of yourself, you do know that?
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-03-15 08:11:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You're an idiot. A list of search terms extracted by Google and delivered in random order isn't going to affect anything. Shit, the Justice Department has to pay Google for the work required. And from all 30 stories I've read, Google can refuse to give some data if they feel it would threaten their ranking algorithm.
Nothing to see here, go ahead and cry injustice down the street.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-03-15 07:16:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Meh. I mean the premise is funny but the things you searched really didn't have anything to do with the links that came up. I'm not going to laugh just because an article shares the words Alito and Boy in the same page when they are 5 paragraphs apart.
Submitted by Grimm (user info) at 2006-03-15 06:33:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
loved it
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-03-15 06:29:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
signed Meathead
Submitted by DizzyMissus (user info) at 2006-03-15 06:24:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I like your style!
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-15 06:21:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
good shit.
Submitted by ScottPeterson (user info) at 2006-03-15 06:09:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
negro school teacher reference
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2006-03-15 05:31:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Important issue, good response.
Submitted by DonovanMD (user info) at 2006-03-15 04:16:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Hahaha, this is an example of the ideal Uber post. Both in content and presentation.
Submitted by jeveuxgagner (user info) at 2006-03-15 02:49:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.fa-ir.org/ai/judgeware.htm
Submitted by jeveuxgagner (user info) at 2006-03-15 02:37:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2006-03-15 02:03:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
horray?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 01:33:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Besides....that was barging, not sneaking, of course meaning I'm gonna wear two river boats as shoes. :|
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-15 01:32:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, most of these people don't roller skate, so the stairs should at least be safe.
Submitted by PokeyPecker (user info) at 2006-03-15 01:31:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
sneaking into houses in the middle of the nig could get you hurt, my good man.